The distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Sections 299 and 300 of IPC, and the application of the reformative theory of punishment in determining the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present criminal appeal challenges judgment and order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 1344 of 2013 whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant, Rohtash for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced accused to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. It is an admitted position of fact that accused-appellant, Rohtash, is in jail since 22.05.2013.

3. Heard Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the accusedappellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the son-in-law of the deceased lodged an FIR on 11.05.2013 at about 11.00 a.m. against the accused-appellant which got registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 2013 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged at P.S. Newadi, District Ghaziabad. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that accused-appellant Rohtash came to the mother-in-law's house with the intention of killing her and stabbed the deceased several times in the stomach with a knife. She was admitted in the Government Hospital, Moradabad by her daughter and son-in-law, due to serious condition of the deceased, she was referred to G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi. During treatment, the deceased breathed her last on 19.05.2013 namely after 8 days of incident due to septicemic shock.

5. On investigation being put into motion, the investigating officer recorded the statements of all the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet to the learned Magistrate against accused-Rohtash, under Sections 302 of IPC.

6. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offences alleged to have been committed were triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the above accused under Sections Section 302 of IPC.

7. On being summoned, the accused-person pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

8. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 9 witnesses who are as follows:

9. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved:

10. At the end of the trial and after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above.

11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident occurred on the spur of moment and the accused had not premeditated to do away with the deceased. It is submitted that the death was after seven-eight days. The cause of death according to doctor who conducted the postmortem of deceased was due to septicemia.

12. It is further submitted that conviction under Section 302 IPC is not made out as no overt act as per Section 300 IPC is made out. In alternative, it is submitted that at the most, the death can be homicidal death not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 II or Section 304 I of I.P.C. If the Court decides that the accused is guilty under S